User talk:Selfstudier: Difference between revisions
Selfstudier (talk | contribs) |
→Review needed - Oxford Union: new section |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Second, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence|evidence phase]] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
Second, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence|evidence phase]] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> |
||
== Review needed - Oxford Union == |
|||
Hey Selfstudier, can you please give feedback? |
|||
Some time back I noted in the news some accusations regarding the Oxford Union society. I edited and sourced it (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1261116207). Now, I did screw up the links. That's on me. |
|||
Trenchist however reverted it on what can only be called partisan grounds. There's a reason I wrote allegations there. Similar in how previous controversies are sourced, I added what the controversy is about including news articles on what those claiming things have said. I reviewed the articles 'opposing' them and found nothing useful what wasn't mentioned elsewhere and what was relevant to the core of the allegations. |
|||
If it was purely POV I would've debated it, but Trenchist reverted and called it contentious topic 'Gaza genocide'. That pissed me kinda off and I re-reverted. |
|||
Is it something that shouldn't have been on the Oxford Union page (non-notable), was it fine or was something missing? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A452:1BE2:1:2D14:48F7:3498:B232|2A02:A452:1BE2:1:2D14:48F7:3498:B232]] ([[User talk:2A02:A452:1BE2:1:2D14:48F7:3498:B232|talk]]) 13:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:23, 17 December 2024
−
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Archives
| |||||||
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.
Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
- The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
- The initial parties will be:
- Aoidh will be the initial drafter
- The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
- All case pages are to be semi-protected.
- Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
- Addendum
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
- Ïvana (talk · contribs)
- Levivich (talk · contribs)
- Nableezy (talk · contribs)
- Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
- האופה (talk · contribs)
- AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
- Alaexis (talk · contribs)
- Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
- Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
- Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs)
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.
The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA
. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Review needed - Oxford Union
Hey Selfstudier, can you please give feedback?
Some time back I noted in the news some accusations regarding the Oxford Union society. I edited and sourced it (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1261116207). Now, I did screw up the links. That's on me.
Trenchist however reverted it on what can only be called partisan grounds. There's a reason I wrote allegations there. Similar in how previous controversies are sourced, I added what the controversy is about including news articles on what those claiming things have said. I reviewed the articles 'opposing' them and found nothing useful what wasn't mentioned elsewhere and what was relevant to the core of the allegations.
If it was purely POV I would've debated it, but Trenchist reverted and called it contentious topic 'Gaza genocide'. That pissed me kinda off and I re-reverted.
Is it something that shouldn't have been on the Oxford Union page (non-notable), was it fine or was something missing? 2A02:A452:1BE2:1:2D14:48F7:3498:B232 (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)